Investigationr, Raj Kumar Alias Raju yadav Alias Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of Biharz and Ravinder Vs. State of Mp

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Duggempudi Srinivasa Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.897 OF 2016 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is frled by the petitioner/ accused No. I under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.O3.2O16 in Criminal Appeal No.2G3 of 2011 on the hle of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, wherein and where under while confrrming the conviction of the petitioner awarded vide judgment dated 18.O5.2O1I in CC No.ll9t of 2OLO on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a hne of Rs.3,OOO/- for the offence under Section 382 IPC was reduced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and hne of Rs.3,OOO/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and further, rigorous imprisonment of three years arld fine of Rs,3,O0O/- imposed for the offence under Section 452 IPC was reduced to two years and fine of Rs.3,OOO/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. '--,/. Page 2 of6

2. Heard Sri Duggernpudi Srinivasa Rao, barned legal aid counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Iearned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent/ State.

3. CC No. 1l9l of 2Oll is a case registered against the accused basing on the complaint lodged by PWI in FIR No.5l4 of 2O10 for the offences under Sections 452, 34L,323 and 382 of IpC alleging that on 2a.O9.2OlO when he went out of the house for attending his job, accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are ttrc tenants of pWl, by taking advantage of his absence in the house, illegally trespassed into his house under the guise of asking for a cup of tea powder and when his wife was about to bring ttre tea powder, they locked the door, wrongfully restrained the wife of PWI and snatched away the gold and silver ornaments and assaulted his wife.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, before the trial Court, PWs. I to 7 were examined, trxs.Pl to P7 were marked and Mos.l to 7 were also marked. No oral or documentaqr evidence was adduced on behalfof the accused.

5. The tria-l Court, holding that the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 382 of IPC and failed to prove the guilt of \cused for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 323 IPC, convicted the accused and sentenced them, as stated supra. Page J of6 Aggrieved by the said frndings, the petitioner/accused Nol alone preferred criminal appeal No.263 of 2Oll before the appellate Court. The appellate Court while confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 382 IPC reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as stated above.

6. Aggrieved by the said hndings, the petitioner / Al preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the appellate Court and the trial Court have convicted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence and basing on the interested witness i.e. PWs. I and 2, who are wife and husband; no rental agreement is there on record to show that the accused are the tenants of PW 1; the fact of wrongly mentioning the name of accused No.2 in the complaint evidences that the accused are not the tenants of PW 1; PW 1 is not the eye witness to the incident; mediators/ PWs.3 and 4 are the stock witnesses of police a-nd their evidence cannot be relied upon; the accused are falsely implicated in the present case for extraneous reasons and tfiat the PWs. 1 and 2 did not give the descriptive particulars of the ornaments, stated to have been stollen by the accused.

7. On the otJrer hand, learned assistant public prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that there is no need or necessit5r for this Court to interfere with the well considered findings of the trial Court as well Page 4 of6 t' as the appellate Court as they were made after meticulously scrutinizing the entire material on record and further, the grounds urged herein do not have force warranting interference of this Court. 8. This Court perused the evidence on record, impugned judgments and heard the rival contentions advanced on either side. PWI is the husband of pW2/victim, pW3 is the mediator for drawing scene of offence panchanama/ Ex. p2 and for drawing rough sketch of scene of offence/Ex.p3. pw4 is ttre mediator to confessions cum seizure panchanamas/Exs.p4 and p5 of accused and for recovery of. Mos. I to 7 from the possession of accused No. r. pwS assisted pw7 in apprehending the accused near pot Market, secunderabad. pw6 examined PW2 and issued Ex.p6 would certificate. pW7 is the investigating officer. When their evidence is scrutinized the contention of the accused ttrat they were not the tenants of pW. 1 is not acceptable since learned counsel for the accused before the triat Court has taken a plea that the accuse have paid certain amounts towards deposit of two months rents. Since there is no evidence to establish the wrongful con{inement of pW2, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. Though the accused contended that they were falsely implicated in the present case, they failed to give the reason for PWs. I to 2 to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Evidence on record clearly proved that Mos_ 1 to 7 were recovered Page 5 of6 from the possession of the accused. When the above evidence is scrutinized, this Court finds no fault in the findings of the trial Court and appe[late Court watranting interference of this Court since ttre prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 382 lPC. The grounds urged herein are all the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused before the appellate Court and also the trial Court, which Courts have answered them logically. When the impugned judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court are perused in the light of the above factual matrix, this Court finds nothing erroneous or fault in hnding the accused guilty and hence, this Court opines that there is no reason or ground to interfere with the said hndings. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminal revision case.

9. However, so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court against the petitioner is concerned, as the incident occurred in the year 2O 1O and since then the petitioner might have suffered mental agony by roaming around the Courts and also suffering physical incarceration, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in favour of the accused basing on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'lcle Apex Court in VK Verm.a Vs.Central Bureau of !^ 1 I J I I t t I I I I I ! I i I J I i : ..}.. Page 6 of6 Investigationr, Raj Kumar Alias Raju yadav Alias Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Biharz and Ravinder Vs. State of Mp3 by reducing the period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the period of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and modified by the appellate Court against the petiLioner for a,ll tJle counts is reduced to that of the period which he had already undergone while upholding the hne arnount. Except the above modification with regard to the sentence of imprisonment, this criminal revision case stands dismissed in all other aspects. lO. [n the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending stand dismissed. Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA D PUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (pOA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (with records, if any) The X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad The Superintendent, Chanchalguda Central Prison, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Chilkalguda Police Station, Secunderabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Duggempudi Srinivasa Rao, Advocate-cum-Legal Aid {OUTI Two CD Copies SL I 1z0l+; I Supreme Court Cases 485 '(2006) 9 Supreme Courr Cases 589 r i2006; 9 Supreme Court Cases 590 I I I I l i j I , i : i HIGH COURT DATED:07lO2t2O2S ORDER CRLRC.No.897 of 2016 '',,,"'E S _'r4 14: ,r,i':,r' t I l! 31 JUL zffi ..\ I- l't - " /- /.1 (.11 -:1 </ -*z/ -.j/ ;t/' -= o //o 4-a /1,/7 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE